Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

No, but seriously, I don't think Nanjo knows about the split personality thing, he doens't even live on the island to begin with, so he wouldn't bother to learn the names of all the servants that worked there.

Maybe in Prime that could be true, but in the gameboards Nanjo is working as Yasu's accomplice, so he kind of has to know about Shkanon, doesn't he?

Spoiler for All Jan-Poo all the time. SOME stuff actually relevent to Umineko...:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

By the way you make it sound as if it is just something related to Umineko while many theories in physic are based on assumptions.

Well, I was insinuating that Umineko is (relatively) unique, but that was in the context of stories, not all of creation... In most stories everyone can agree to accept everything shown to happen as truth. We can't assume that in Umineko, or rather, we assume different things are reliable. It makes logical persuasion extremely difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Actually one could say that the very scientific method is based on an assumption.

It is. Even the scientific method cannot be logically justified if you question the uniformity of nature. Not that I'm about to actually question the uniformity of nature; that would be silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Your interpretation of my statement is wrong.
I hope it's clear now.

OK. I get it. But does this mean you take the position that Yasu, just based on what we know of her, is not more likely to adopt and hide a random amnesiac than the average person? Becaaaaaause... I find that idea preposterous.

I apologize for accusing you so easily here. However, I would like to say that I really don't like the way you worded your argument. It seemed to presume the only argument I could make would be using circular logic. I can only see the fact it was brought up as an insinuation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's still a long shot from claiming that an "informal fallacy" is a "valid logic" or that "fallacy" and "valid" aren't antithetic. All that you have proved so far is that an "Informal fallacy" is not "formally invalid" which is almost tautological since if the fallacy is informal that means there's no fallacy in the form.

Whoa now, why are you belittling me here? This line of discussion was all about disputing your "evidence". You're asking me to produce something that basically says word for word that "circular logic is a valid argument", but neither that nor the opposite seems to exist. I'm not going to waste our time by throwing any more pseudo-evidence out there.

And to begin with, I honestly don't see why we shouldn't think that an argument which has all "valid" inferences, can be called a "valid" argument. It seems completely natural to me. I don't care if you say if it's "formally valid" in its inferences, then it can be a "formally valid" argument, or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In the context of a discussion it's always invalid by definition. I think the article you asked me so many times to read is almost entirely focused on demonstrating that.

Well, since it's now clear you're talking about the general definition here, I disagree. In the general sense of "is it effective/acceptable/legitimate?" I would certainly not hesistate to call circular logic "not valid" over "valid". But, a) That would technically be my opinion on fallacious arguments, not an inherent part of the definition of them, and b) It would be a bad choice of words as it invites confusion due to the other uses of the same word. Just call it "fallacious" and be done with it.

By the way, fallacious arguments can be effective even when the other party recognizes they're fallacious. Usually this involves an appeal to humor, fear, hope, or other emotions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's not just my point since I quoted a dictionary. You interpreted "jointly asserted" in the wrong way, by the way.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jointly
What it means is that both parties involved in the discussion must agree that the premises (or the premise if it's one) are true.

I'm not convinced. How are you so sure that my interpretation is wrong? By the way, the second set of definitions used on that same page you used regarding validity and logic clearly supports what I've been saying:

Quote:

logic Compare invalid (of an inference or argument) having premises and conclusion so related that whenever the former are true the latter must also be true, esp ( formally valid ) when the inference is justified by the form of the premises and conclusion alone. Thus Tom is a bachelor; therefore Tom is unmarried is valid but not formally so, while today is hot and dry; therefore today is hot is formally valid

But you won't acknowledge something like this, either, and honesty I don't even blame you. That's why I generally don't bother presenting this kind of pseudo-evidence; there's just too much conflicting information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Anyway I think I demonstrated that it is perfecly legit in english to state that a "logic is invalid" even in those cases where the fallacy is purely informal. Because even if you say that a specific termonology would require you to rather say that the "logic is unsound", it is a fact that "valid" and "sound" are generally treated as synonim.

I don't think it's legit in English to state that 'a logic is invalid'. At least not grammatically. The word "logic" is, as far as I've ever known, an uncountable noun and thus never has the article "a" in front of it. It's like saying 'a money' or 'a dirt' or 'an electricity'. Normally I wouldn't bother with an English lesson, but it dawned on me that maybe this is an indication that we're working from different definitions of "logic".

Anyway, if what you're saying is that it's legit to call an argument invalid due to it being fallacious, I've already written my stance on that above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You can't talk about how your theory is more probable than mine if you appeal to miracles.

Theme of miracles. Don't equivocate. We totally can argue probabilities of Ryukishi's intent in his writing and even produce evidence for or against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The same thing that he was doing with the 34 pun. If Sayo isn't Miyo then Ikuko isn't necessarily Beatrice. "Spiritual successor" seems to fit nicely with both.

Sayo didn't have a bird-watching friend she named a as number-punned reference to Tomitake... who turned out to actually be Tomitake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Anyway if you are arguing that Tohya isn't Battler, then you can no longer say that a number pun must definitely implicate that the characters involved are the exact same person.

Three things:
I dropped that argument a long time ago.
I've never been interpreting Umineko from a standpoint of absolutes.
I suspected Ikuko was Yasu before I even knew about the number pun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

They don't even have to, it was merely stated there were no MORE than 19/18 people on the island.

No, they don't have to, but there's all the classic ShKanon hints.

Actually, I've always considered that the reason Kanon "died" in the meta-world of EP6 is because the logic that Battler and Beatrice used outright denied the possibility of his independent existence. Up until that point he could be a separate person.

I never even realised what I was denying by saying that, I am a full subscriber to 2 people 1 body. You do have a point though, he was given more freedom in ep 5 (or Erika was made to completely ignore him by Lamba or something) and then effectively denied in red in ep 6. However, this would have made more sense if he had then ceased to be in ep 7. Haha, funeral for Kanon, you could probably string the audience into thinking it was Beato for a fair while.

EP7...uh, I don't know, Will is a random Witch Hunter fan who's not an asshole goat?

Actually, let's roll with this just for fun. Given the association Will has with Lion and whatnot, who's to say Will isn't essentially the author avatar for the person who actually wrote the Lion idea, based upon the forgery of End and its insinuation that there was a secret baby?

The author "creates" Lion and his entire scenario as a "what if," proposing a happy world in which things went right and in which everyone who needed redemption was redeemed. The parts of ep7 we see may not be the forgery itself, but a reflection of Will-Author's meditation on the characters and their backgrounds, story ideas, etc. This could explain why Kinzo is sometimes alive and sometimes not; Will-Author can't quite decide how it should play out, and so forth.

Because the story is kind and touches on what Beatrice probably wanted rather than the sensationalism of the murder mystery backstory, this work convinces Tohya that Beatrice can be "laid to rest" if his message has been understood by at least one person. Which could explain why there's nothing that Tohya claims to have written after Dawn.

However, the greater Witch Hunter community would probably mock a story like that and insist that it couldn't just end like that, someone would have to commit the murders and there'd have to be an inheritance argument, in direct contradiction to all the stuff written before about how that wasn't going to happen. So they'd probably insist upon tearing apart the story because they refuse to let Lion be happy. The Will-Author defends his work, but against the weight of the community he's discredited.

However, Tohya is fond of him and so Battler notes that Will and Lion got out of the situation OK, because "screw you I say so."

Of course this would mean we either decide the stuff interwoven into ep7 is distinct from the Will-Author's own forgery and is meant to sort-of-sort-of-not confirm that he's thinking along the correct lines with respect to his characterization and beliefs, or that he made all of it up, which would be intensely frustrating since it's about all the characterization of Beatrice's creator that we really have.

Then again, I can more readily accept that some random guy made up the whole submarine bullcrap than that it actually was supposed to be taken seriously. Will-Author is clearly a hopeless romantic, which actually sort of fits Will's characterization of quitting his job because he's sick of mysteries where motives are ignored.

So from what I can understand of the last novel, there's no actual solution to the murders...

Right, there's no actual solutions to the murders. Technically, we don't even know if there WERE murders, though it was very lightly implied by Eva's diary. We DO know the solutions to the gameboards, though. Mostly. Kinda.

Also, the Battler-family culprit, even if it DID happen in the real world, would have been NOTHING like what we saw in either EP7 or EP8. The one in EP7 is out of character and, frankly, makes no logical sense. And the one in EP8 is openly admitted to be just a logic riddle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenLand

Servants hired from the Fukuin house work at Rokkenjima in shifts; they're not there every day of the year. In the TIPS menu in-game, it mentions how Shannon and Kanon just happened to both be on duty on the days of the family conference in 1986. There are other servants who work at Rokkenjima too and who just weren't on the roster for those days.

Well, that's not entirely true - Shannon and Kanon didn't "just happen" to be on the schedule that day, Natsuhi scheduled all of the servants who knew about Kinzo's death and could support her in that. The only exception is Ghoda, who seems to only be present for Ryukishi to use as a clue for certain things, and by Natsuhi because his cooking was just too awesome.
I do think it's odd we didn't get more about Shannon's free time. Granted, I was kind of sick of Shannon by EP4, but we're told in EP6 that she was only working, like, 3 days a week? And was of course a full time student like Jessica.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

. Haha, funeral for Kanon, you could probably string the audience into thinking it was Beato for a fair while.

Man, probably. It's interesting how outside of a blurb at the end of Clair's story, Kanon just doesn't even figure into Requiem, and Will's just all "Yeah, we don't need that part of the story." And I'm like "...wat."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renall

Actually, let's roll with this just for fun. Given the association Will has with Lion and whatnot, who's to say Will isn't essentially the author avatar for the person who actually wrote the Lion idea, based upon the forgery of End and its insinuation that there was a secret baby?

Stop it, Renall, stop being the BEST PERSON OF ALL THE PEOPLE.

I've always subscribed to Will to "a reader who wasn't a jerkass goat, and satisfied Tohya's/Beato's desire to have the story understood properly", but Will = creator of the Lion idea is also pretty satisfying in several ways... an experienced mystery fan would certainly be weary of "certain kinda of tales", and it also holds true to Will deciding not to hold Beato's board to the standards of the Van Dine rules.

ALSO, Wanderer, thanks for clearing up why you didn't take to my "Kanon had an individual body" theory, that's pretty valid.
I would counter, however, that the abuse of Shkanon's "mechanics" (however loosey goosey they might be) is already in the writing, and needs to be accounted for. I HAVE to account for the EP5 parlor scene because it is SO glaring, just, SO VERY glaring, especially after you read EP6. About Lambda's red that the person count is the same, i think the Shkanon Replacement Theory as you offer, probably puts the person count as There are 17 people, except when it's only 16 people.. If I have to also account for Battler's red that killed Erika at the end of EP6, I can only say "rule of cool", as Ryukishi has blatantly done SEVERAL times in the Meta-shenanigans, anyway.
But yeah, I see why one can feel differently, also. Trying to imagine a "1 person, 2 bodies" gameboard...

That can be interpreted in a few ways. In EP3, Beato told the story of Beatrice II and Rosa as if that Beatrice was her. Plus, Beatrice II was imprisoned because she was supposed to be the same person as Bice Castiglioni.

Or Ange's Sakutarou. If it is true that Ange found a replacement, one could interpret that Sakutarou had two bodies. The Black Witch had two bodies (the body of Eva, and the body of Rosa)

In fact, if Shannon or Kanon could go up to Maria, claim she is Beatrice and perform magic, Battler could do magic for Maria too and now Battler could be Beatrice too.

I would say that because of the way 2 people, 1 body is defined in Umineko, the opposite can be just as true.

That can be interpreted in a few ways. In EP3, Beato told the story of Beatrice II and Rosa as if that Beatrice was her. Plus, Beatrice II was imprisoned because she was supposed to be the same person as Bice Castiglioni.

Or Ange's Sakutarou. If it is true that Ange found a replacement, one could interpret that Sakutarou had two bodies. The Black Witch had two bodies (the body of Eva, and the body of Rosa)

In fact, if Shannon or Kanon could go up to Maria, claim she is Beatrice and perform magic, Battler could do magic for Maria too and now Battler could be Beatrice too.

I would say that because of the way 2 people, 1 body is defined in Umineko, the opposite can be just as true.

This is a big part of EP6 with "Beatrice" actually being composed of "Kinzo's Lover" and "Beatrice II" and Yasu and the Illusion of the Witch.
If we take that the different arcs were written by different authors, it would make sense that the representation of Beatrice is ITSELF an illusion because the person writing has fallen for this very trap.

Aaah I love the Will = author of Lion theory idea! Don't know if it's true (well, it probably isn't), but it's a lovely idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well, that's not entirely true - Shannon and Kanon didn't "just happen" to be on the schedule that day, Natsuhi scheduled all of the servants who knew about Kinzo's death and could support her in that. The only exception is Ghoda, who seems to only be present for Ryukishi to use as a clue for certain things, and by Natsuhi because his cooking was just too awesome.
I do think it's odd we didn't get more about Shannon's free time. Granted, I was kind of sick of Shannon by EP4, but we're told in EP6 that she was only working, like, 3 days a week? And was of course a full time student like Jessica.

Yes, but that is still what the TIPS say. It's just that the TIPS are lying to us.

It makes sense that Natsuhi would schedule Shannon and Kanon for that day. And it's entirely possible that Yasu wanted those two on the schedule for that day as well for whatever she had planned. I'm sure Yasu could have got out of the schedule if she wanted to, even if it meant interfereing with Natsuhi's plans. ("We apologise, Madam, but Kanon came down with the flu yesterday...").

I had honestly completely forgotten the details of Shannon's time off the island and whether she was still studying at school or had quit. That's how little we were told about it...

If Shannon was a full time student and only worked a few days a week, that probably hurts the theory that Kanon was a "real" person who was acted out rather than an just an imaginary friend. Because they wouldn't have the same shift every time, and Shannon would still be expected at school when she wasn't on the island. It might still be possible, though, as long as Genji/Kumasawa/etc helped Yasu out a lot. It would just be more difficult.

I just don't believe in Shannon = Kanon...there is too much against. I am still unconvinced...in fact they are still 2 different people to me

1) EP1 - Battler was introduced to both of them as 2 different people and so everyone else (including Jessica) thought of them as 2 different people, thus how could Yasu have gotten away with it for so long dressing up between Kanon and Shannon?
2) EP3 - who did the parents see in the 1st Twilight because the text suggests they saw both Kanon and Shannon?
3) EP5 - Erika saw both Shannon and Kanon together (also nothing was mentioned that Shannon was behind Erika or in front of her)
4) Jessica & George, people keep calling Yasu gender confused but what about Jessica and George? They are certainly not gender-confused...and no clues have been presented which suggests that they are attracted to the same sex, so surely Jessica would have noticed Kanon is actually a girl or Shannon is actually a boy and either said something or stopped loving them...
5) Evidence has been given from what Battler has seen that Jessica does indeed love Kanon and George does indeed love Shannon (so it's not as if these pairings are actually fiction themselves either), so it is clear that J&G believe that Shannon and Kanon are 2 different people.
6) EP2 shows Jessica speaking closely to both Shannon and Kanon, she would have noticed if they were actually the same person if she looked close enough (in fact anyone could have) but this is a more flimsy argument as Yasu could avoid close contact with people, that scene with Jessica and Shannon together in Jessica's room could be false (Battler was not there) and as long as it is possible it is possible, it is possible.
7) Battler, evidence in EP4 I think (whenever they had the picnic) and EP7 shows that Battler had promised Shannon who obviously was a girl (as Battler has shown no inkling of liking the same sex) that he would ride a white horse and take her away from the island, Battler clearly had romantic feelings for her thus suggesting that Shannon is distinctively a girl.
8) EP6, with the logic error bit which Kanon fixes, we still are not told explicitly how he escapes from the cousin's room but a red truth tells us that Kanon does not share a name with anyone in the other room (ie Shannon) and that only the person themselves can have that name (ie no fake names!).
9) EP6, also with the logic error bit if Shannon was stated in red to be part of the 5 who were in the other room and at the same time Kanon was off rescuing Battler, then that means Kanon and Shannon were in 2 different places at the same time according to the red truth.
10) EP6 finale, in red it is said to Erika that even if Erika exists THERE ARE 17 PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND, so Shannon and Kanon are different people to bring the people alive count up to 17 (we know people must refer to those alive because Kinzo is not included in this total).

And so Kanon and Shannon are 2 different people! EP7 was a complete troll of an episode...I don't think Kyrie and Rudolf did anything either (EP2 - 1st twilight shows all)

It was all Rosa - I know it there is no other way...but it is hard to pin her down as the culprit.

How does proving that Shannon =/= Kanon (Which you haven't done, by the way, but I'm sure others will debunk your points better than I can) prove that Rosa is the killer? Why couldn't it JUST be Kanon or JUST be Shannon under what you're suggesting?

pikablu, all your evidence is from written Forgeries which in all likelihood deliberately exaggerate the distinction between Shannon and Kanon in order for Yasu to demonstrate the conflict that she felt within herself.

I doubt that Yasu ever actually play-acted as two different personalities in reality; it's only a device she uses within the stories to show that she felt conflicted between several futures, perhaps even wished that she could live as two (or three!) different people so that she wouldn't have to 'kill' two of the people that she had the potential to become.

As for EP5, that entire episode doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's pretty easy to attribute the parlor scene to Lambda trolling, especially since Ronove warns Battler that Lambda isn't going to be playing the game fairly like Beato did.

I just don't believe in Shannon = Kanon...there is too much against. I am still unconvinced...in fact they are still 2 different people to me

Not sure if serious...
But I'll respond with the most general consensus about things. I mention first, though, that your main complaint with Shkanon is "that's stupid and they would've seen through the disguise immediately", which is a problem pretty much EVERYONE has, and we've just had to accept or try not to think too hard about it. I'll also say that I'll restrict these things to the gameboards. That is, I'm not trying to ('cause we probably can't, anyway) account for what was going on in the real world.

1.) We have no idea to what extent Yasu was trying to pull off both roles. It's very possible she was doing it very rarely, if at all, and during the games themselves, she never tries to be both for very long. One or both of them are dead usually, and in EP4 I forget if he saw either at all after he met them.
2.)Yeah, they saw both Shannon and Kanon. That person waited until they left the parlor, and went to the chapel.
3.) The Parlor scene in EP5 is a subject of RIDICULOUSLY HUGE debate, here.
4.) You're right, there's no indication that George or Jessica are anything but typical strictly-heteros. This is not even an issue with anything as presented, though.
5.) Of course George and Jessica think they're dating two different people. You remember Zepar/Furfurs explanation for why it was inappropriate for furniture to fall in love, right..?
6.) Another point along the lines of "but they should have noticed." Like I said, we all have this problem. Of course, Jessica also apparently doesnt notice that gramps has been deadballs for 2 years, so...
7.)Yeah, Battler seems typically hetero, too. You remember that Kanon only started working on the island in 1984, though, right..?
8.)The fact that you can only claim your own name does not prohibit legitimately owning multiple names. And we're rather explicitly told that Kanon "escaped" by virtue of having never been in the room in the first place.
9.)No, we're told Shannon was in the room when it was sealed. All of those people are perfectly free to leave after the seal is broken. It's not a matter of Shkanon existing at two places at once, but rather Kanon, at least for a moment, not existing in any place at all.
10.) Actually in this bit, Shannon and Kanon need to exist as one person to bring it down to 16. So Erika can bring it back up to 17. Of course, take this particular scene ... ahem, "as you will" on the matter.

You can sort of accept Shkanon on the gameboards, because you can't say the clues weren't there, if a bit weakly. And I won't say the execution was very good, either. Won't even say that Kanon existed in whatever the realest world happens to be. But, I mean, it almost certainly definitely is part of the solution to dem gameboards.

Isn't it implied that she's in on it? I'm pretty sure she claims to have met Kinzo recently several times in Episode 1.

I vaguely remember it. She was saying something like "I'm glad he's decided to keep to himself lately, 'cause he annoys me so much."

I don't think she was intended to be in on it, or at least, the idea of her being so is completely dropped afterwards. The closest I'd say myself is that she probably suspected at least once, or something, 'cause "Grandpa wanders the halls and sometimes smacks me on the ass" to "Man, I haven't seen Grandpa ALL. YEAR." is pretty jarring. But then, this story is clearly not concerned as concerned with Jessica as it could be, for whatever reason, so, hey.

Are there any lines that suggest that she isn't in on it? I've honestly never considered the possibility that she might not be; I mean, why would Krauss and Natsuhi trust the servants but not their own daughter with it?

Also...

"......Jessica-chan, what's the head of our family's mood been lately?"
"...Hmm......,Same as last year, I guess. ......Considering they say he's got three months left, he's as stubborn, grumpy, and irritable as ever."

I mean, she could just be assuming that based on what Krauss and Natsuhi are saying, but I think it's more likely that she's been told what to say in advance.

I just don't believe in Shannon = Kanon...there is too much against. I am still unconvinced...in fact they are still 2 different people to me

1) EP1 - Battler was introduced to both of them as 2 different people and so everyone else (including Jessica) thought of them as 2 different people, thus how could Yasu have gotten away with it for so long dressing up between Kanon and Shannon?
2) EP3 - who did the parents see in the 1st Twilight because the text suggests they saw both Kanon and Shannon?
3) EP5 - Erika saw both Shannon and Kanon together (also nothing was mentioned that Shannon was behind Erika or in front of her)
4) Jessica & George, people keep calling Yasu gender confused but what about Jessica and George? They are certainly not gender-confused...and no clues have been presented which suggests that they are attracted to the same sex, so surely Jessica would have noticed Kanon is actually a girl or Shannon is actually a boy and either said something or stopped loving them...
5) Evidence has been given from what Battler has seen that Jessica does indeed love Kanon and George does indeed love Shannon (so it's not as if these pairings are actually fiction themselves either), so it is clear that J&G believe that Shannon and Kanon are 2 different people.
6) EP2 shows Jessica speaking closely to both Shannon and Kanon, she would have noticed if they were actually the same person if she looked close enough (in fact anyone could have) but this is a more flimsy argument as Yasu could avoid close contact with people, that scene with Jessica and Shannon together in Jessica's room could be false (Battler was not there) and as long as it is possible it is possible, it is possible.
7) Battler, evidence in EP4 I think (whenever they had the picnic) and EP7 shows that Battler had promised Shannon who obviously was a girl (as Battler has shown no inkling of liking the same sex) that he would ride a white horse and take her away from the island, Battler clearly had romantic feelings for her thus suggesting that Shannon is distinctively a girl.
8) EP6, with the logic error bit which Kanon fixes, we still are not told explicitly how he escapes from the cousin's room but a red truth tells us that Kanon does not share a name with anyone in the other room (ie Shannon) and that only the person themselves can have that name (ie no fake names!).
9) EP6, also with the logic error bit if Shannon was stated in red to be part of the 5 who were in the other room and at the same time Kanon was off rescuing Battler, then that means Kanon and Shannon were in 2 different places at the same time according to the red truth.
10) EP6 finale, in red it is said to Erika that even if Erika exists THERE ARE 17 PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND, so Shannon and Kanon are different people to bring the people alive count up to 17 (we know people must refer to those alive because Kinzo is not included in this total).

And so Kanon and Shannon are 2 different people! EP7 was a complete troll of an episode...I don't think Kyrie and Rudolf did anything either (EP2 - 1st twilight shows all)

It was all Rosa - I know it there is no other way...but it is hard to pin her down as the culprit.

1) She's buying off Genji, Kumasawa, and Nanjo. If three highly respected people who've been involved in Kinzo's highest authority say they're different, who would disagree? Also, Shannon and Kanon both working on the island at the same time is really rare. It only happens a couple times a year.

2) It's highly implied in each episode that the First Twilight is faked. It's entirely possible, nay, likely, that Yasu is buying off all the adults for a Murder Mystery Game for the kids.

3) Did she? Anyway, this is a plot hole for several reasons besides, not just because of Kanon and Shannon.

6) It's really not that difficult to mislead someone into thinking you're someone else. And Jessica trust Shannon and Kanon very much, so she has no reason to doubt their identities. Hell, Jessica has the least reason to be suspicious; EP7 points out that she would rather believe in magic than distrust the servants. It TERRIFIES her.

7) What does this have to do with anything?

8) If Shannon and Kanon are the same person, Kanon isn't sharing his name with anyone. The only way that logic error is solved is if Kanon was never in the guest room. That's the point. Shannon was in one room, and "Everyone else" is in another. Since Kanon is Shannon, Kanon isn't part of "everyone else."

9) No they weren't. Shannon exited the room. The other room was more perfectly sealed than the room Shannon is, if you review the Red.

10) ...You can't count. Erika is the 17th person. "Even with Erika, there are only 17 people." That means Everyone - Erika = 16 people. Now count how many people there are.

And so Kanon and Shannon are 2 different people! EP7 was a complete troll of an episode...

...............Episode 7 was the best Episode in Chiru............And Battler never saw Shkanon together in Ep1-4, Only does See them In Ep5 , When he is not the detective , As for who is, Erika , Her goal in Episode 5 is not to find culrpit of Umineko , It's to blame everything on Natsuhi because Adults told her to do so and are Helping her.Who Kills Krauss is a mystery, I don't know why would someone do it. Piece Erika is different from Meta Erika. They have different goals, Piece Erika wants Natsuhi to admit Kinzos death and Meta Erika wants to Destroy Illusion of the witch, She does not need a real answer , therefore she does not care for Shkanon, Of course she noticed that 1 person was missing but she did not question it, Because she is also one of the actress characters to make Natsuhi look like the culprit.Kanon existed with Shannon with servants only as for the reletives , they are not the detective so their point of view is subjective.Shkannon Exists, It is hinted at and I can't see murders of Ep1-4 being explained without it , (We are cheating with reds a little with personality death and Believe it or not I like Shkannon solution because it is twisted, evil and just mindfuck). As For the Prime Kanon probably never really existed , or he once did as Shanon playing the part of guy for Jessica on the school culture festival. This is what I believe.